Why do we put children though school?

JohnMarston

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

The biggest waste of time in school was P.E. For me it was forty minutes of sheer misery with thirty odd pupils laughing at me for not being able to kick a football. I know it's supposed to keep children fit but I would have been better off if I had gotten out of school forty minutes early so I could have gotten exercise on my own terms by going for a walk or something.

Then there was music. I see children coming out of school now with guitar and violin cases but it wasn't like that for me. All I can remember is the teacher waffling on about songs I had never heard of. I never even saw a musical instrument in the class. For all I know the teacher may not have had any musical knowledge or ability whatsoever.

Pretty much my experience of it too. I remember carrying home a tonnage of books every day from school too, cos of homework. I see kids doing the same thing nowdays, barely even teenagers and having to break their backs bringing home a literal library.
I thought there would have been steps to do away with paper books, and instead use digital media (i.e. ebooks)

Haelium

Has it occurred to anybody that we teach children Calculus and Poetry so that their minds develop so that they can use their brains to solve real world problems?

The brain is like a muscle, if you don't use it, it will waste away.

Chuck Stone

Biggins wrote: »

Its no use learning to read the likes of Emily Dickinson if you can't read between the lines and come to a conclusion of what she was speaking about.
The same methodology applies for Shakespeare and basically any other complex layer writer that is not Jeffrey Archer in style of writing.

Couldn't agree more with this bit. I just disagree that reading between the lines is taught in any substantive manner in traditional education systems.

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

The biggest waste of time in school was P.E. For me it was forty minutes of sheer misery with thirty odd pupils laughing at me for not being able to kick a football.

I didn't really mind P.E. because I'm not too bad at soccer - what I did hate was exposing my skinny boy-child legs. God did I hate that!

Then there was music.

All I remember of music class was a cacophony of screaming recorders - nightmarish sounds lol.

Abi

Haelium wrote: »

Has it occurred to anybody that we teach children Calculus and Poetry so that their minds develop so that they can use their brains to solve real world problems?

The brain is like a muscle, if you don't use it, it will waste away.

It's actually quite scary that some people don't seem to understand this.

Chuck Stone

Haelium wrote: »

Has it occurred to anybody that we teach children Calculus and Poetry so that their minds develop so that they can use their brains to solve real world problems?

Wait...

Calculus and poetry teach children to solve real world problems!?

No it doesn't!

Truley

Haelium wrote: »

Has it occurred to anybody that we teach children Calculus and Poetry so that their minds develop so that they can use their brains to solve real world problems?

The brain is like a muscle, if you don't use it, it will waste away.

I don't think the thread is about learning, it's about learning within the institutional education system as it exists in its current form.

I don't agree that school in general is waste of time. Much of what you learn in primary school is quite beneficial, such as reading, writing, spelling and maths. Lets face it, if you want to overhaul the system in the way the OP mentioned then you'll still have to teach people how to read.

However I do think secondary is a waste; a huge amount of what I learned in there was of no use to me whatsoever and has thus been forgotten. I'd be all for changing the secondary system to something which is more relevant.

Biggins

Chuck Stone wrote: »

...I just disagree that reading between the lines is taught in any substantive manner in traditional education systems.

Well in that case I was lucky. I had and was in, a very traditional education system.
I learned the ability to read beyond the written word through that system. - but thats just me.

Abi

Truley wrote: »

I don't think the thread is about learning, it's about learning within the institutional education system as it exists in its current form.

What exactly is wrong with the current system though?

Haelium

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Wait...

Calculus and poetry teach children to solve real world problems!?

No it doesn't!

Calculus is perhaps one of the most valuable mathematical areas that exists. In the world of engineering and metorology it is gold.
Poetry allows us to expand our literacy skills and understand subtext, allowing for more efficient communication.

However I meant that these tools, assuming they are not useful to a person, are still valuable as a method of helping development of a child's brain.

In my experience, Calculus has changed the way I think about things completely.

Chuck Stone

Truley wrote: »

I don't think the thread is about learning, it's about learning within the institutional education system as it exists in its current form.

Exactly. There are some brilliant, caring, teachers trapped within that system too.

Our family, by extension, has two teachers in it and I've heard them speak about their own frustrations of having to work within the system and often have to deal with people who, it seems, are all about maintaining the system in its current guise.

Irish Guitarist

Shakespeare killed my love of English class. In primary school I loved writing stories. I would even say to the teacher when the bell rang if I hadn't finished "I'm not finished my story yet, can I finish it at home?".

Then in secondary school I had to read absolute codswallop like "what light under yonder window breaks?". What the hell? Yes, I know he invented a lot of words that are still used today but reading his books didn't teach me anything. I've never once needed to use ye olde English since leaving school.

Enjoying Shakespeare is one thing. Being forced to read it is another matter. It's especially useless nowadays when every second child can barely spell the most basic of words and can't tell the difference between 'whether' and 'weather' but are being taught "O Romeo, Romeo! wherefore art thou Romeo?".

Haelium

Truley wrote: »

I don't think the thread is about learning, it's about learning within the institutional education system as it exists in its current form.

Part of my point is that many people do not see the value in things that are valuable. A childs parents might not see the value in teaching a child science or geography. But it is important to understand the world around us, so schools teach these subjects.

Institutionalization is not always as bad as people think.

Saila

Chuck Stone wrote: »

All I remember of music class was a cacophony of screaming recorders - nightmarish sounds lol.

*shudder*

I turned into the musician I became despite the recording class.. not because of it! then again maybe it sparked something [my music ability and the need for timing] which I later used...opened a door? - I dunno, never will either

I still would have been an awesome guitarist without recorder class though :P

Biggins

Karsini wrote: »

...However I do think secondary is a waste; a huge amount of what I learned in there was of no use to me whatsoever and has thus been forgotten. I'd be all for changing the secondary system to something which is more relevant.

I'm genuinely sorry to hear that you felt and experienced it as a waste.
I would mention though, that to others, its a further stepping stone to greater education, greater opened door opportunities and even larger increasing of their desired skill-set to which they might have then further applied to their favoured high skill needed field.

I have NO doubt as we progress in timeline and as a species who's progression in present needs and forecasting future ones, is still ever evolving, that methods of education need change.
Change is indeed needed at times. To remain stale or stuck in the same process of education for ever more would bring about the decline of the human species inevitability (but thats just an opinion of my own)

El_Dangeroso

Haelium wrote: »

Has it occurred to anybody that we teach children Calculus and Poetry so that their minds develop so that they can use their brains to solve real world problems?

The brain is like a muscle, if you don't use it, it will waste away.

Wow. what did people do before the invention of the school I wonder?

Some people here seem to think children are incapable of learning by themselves. The basics need to be taught, but it doesn't take 30 hours a week for 13 years to do that. What we do need is somewhere to dump our kids for 7 hours a day so two parents can break their backs working to pay an overpriced mortgage.

I hated poetry in school, it was only when I got out of college and started reading it for myself that I began to enjoy it, and, *gasp!* any time I didn't understand something I looked it up on der in-ter-net. Look ma, No teacher!

Chuck Stone

Haelium wrote: »

Calculus is perhaps one of the most valuable mathematical areas that exists. In the world of engineering and metorology it is gold.
Poetry allows us to expand our literacy skills and understand subtext, allowing for more efficient communication.

However I meant that these tools, assuming they are not useful to a person, are still valuable as a method of helping development of a child's brain.

In my experience, Calculus has changed the way I think about things completely.

Fair enough but I think that not having been exposed to calculus and poetry would not necessarily hinder your ability to solve real world problems.

Irish Guitarist

Chuck Stone wrote: »

All I remember of music class was a cacophony of screaming recorders - nightmarish sounds lol.

At least you got to play an actual instrument. All my music teacher did was talk about music, and not even music I had any interest in. I learned more about music when I went home and listened to my tapes and records.

ClocksForward

Some of the people here are truly institutionalized:D

If you had any decency, you would evaluate your childs performance in school and remove him/her as required. Last time I checked, you can study for the leaving cert and the junior cert on your own, with no school involved. Get your kid onto the track to graduate with a decent degree, that will be more useful than wasting your time listening to bull**** in school like religious studies and CSPE.

People don't teach their children to question all the bull**** they hear on a daily basis.

Shame.

Chuck Stone

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

Enjoying Shakespeare is one thing. Being forced to read it is another matter.

I'd be the same. Wasn't exactly inspired by Charles Dickens or Shakespeare myself.

Hard Times was the Carlito Dickens novel we had to do in school. Jesus what a chore.

ClocksForward

Biggins wrote: »

I would mention though, that to others, its a further stepping stone to greater education, greater opened door opportunities and even larger increasing of their desired skill-set to which they might have then further applied to their favoured high skill needed field.

The individual is the one who matriculates to Univeristy based on his/her knowledge, not the school. The school is just a byproduct of informed advice, it has nothing to do with your success in life. Zilch.

ClocksForward

Fbjm wrote: »

Without secondary school, no one would go to university.
Without university, no one would get degrees.
Without degrees, no one would get jobs.
Without jobs, no one would be working in mental institutions, for the mentally unfit.
Without mental institutions for the mentally unfit, people like you would be roaming the streets, creating nonsensical threads on sites like boards and generally being a nuisance.

This is nonsense. Are you trying to say it's impossible? I think you are a secondary school teacher:pac:

Biggins

ClocksForward wrote: »

The individual is the one who matriculates to Univeristy based on his/her knowledge, not the school. The school is just a byproduct of informed advice, it has nothing to do with your success in life. Zilch.

You are right when you say "...who matriculates to Univeristy based on his/her knowledge" - as in most cases today those that get to that third level, have gotten there by the use of the present school system have they not?

ClocksForward wrote: »

..The school is just a byproduct of informed advice, it has nothing to do with your success in life. Zilch.

Informed advice, scientific study, testing, analysis, results and then taking those results and applying them as best they could to those that wish to learn more.
In most cases, thats within a state/private schooling environment.

And to say that school has nothing to do with ones success in life - well I disagree with that assumption.
'Successes' from a schooling comes to others in different degrees.

Biggins

Biggins wrote: »

I'm genuinely sorry to hear that you felt and experienced it as a waste.
I would mention though, that to others, its a further stepping stone to greater education, greater opened door opportunities and even larger increasing of their desired skill-set to which they might have then further applied to their favoured high skill needed field.

I have NO doubt as we progress in timeline and as a species who's progression in present needs and forecasting future ones, is still ever evolving, that methods of education need change.
Change is indeed needed at times. To remain stale or stuck in the same process of education for ever more would bring about the decline of the human species inevitability (but thats just an opinion of my own)

That's fair enough.

I may have had a different experience in a different school, who knows? School was always very hard for me (socially rather than academically) but I wouldn't write off what I learned in the early years as it really is needed.

Yahew

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Because school is not about learning, it's about getting kids used to the mindless drudgery and routine of a 9-5 job. It's social compliance training.

Think about it, if you were given the freedom to learn about things you were truly interested in a non-structured environment for the first 17 years of your life and then told that you now had to sit down and be dictated to in a hierarchical fashion it would come as a bit of a shock. Can't have people thinking that there is a nicer way to live, what would happen to productivity in a nation full of independent thinkers?

well we had the dark ages, when things were unstructured and people were fairly non-productive.

Pherekydes

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

Then in secondary school I had to read absolute codswallop like "what light under yonder window breaks?". What the hell? Yes, I know he invented a lot of words that are still used today but reading his books didn't teach me anything. I've never concerned needed to use ye olde English since leaving school.

What do you mean? Quoting Shakespeare is a great way to get in someone's knickers.

Yahew

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Anyway this isn't about me it's about questioning the Educational system!

Like it or not the world wide web is going to change traditional educational systems enormously.

I was talking to my niece and nephew and trying to explain to them that before the WWW people had to buy the Encyclopedia Britannica to have anywhere near as much access to information. They were truly astonished - and when you think of it it is quite astonishing.

This isn't about you, quite rightly you say. You had a dad who read to you, and you liked to read. I was on a thread recently where people didn't learn to read, or didn't like reading. Even after school. Your dad was your teacher, for less fortunate children, the children of the working classes, teachers have to be teachers. And there are good teachers who turn people to mathematics, science, or literature - or whatever - and change their lives.

ClocksForward

Biggins wrote: »

You are right when you say "...who matriculates to Univeristy based on his/her knowledge" - as in most cases today those that get to that third level, have gotten there by the use of the present school system have they not?


Informed advice, scientific study, testing, analysis, results and then taking those results and applying them as best they could to those that wish to learn more.
In most cases, that s within a schooling environment.

And to say that school has nothing to do with ones success in life - well I disagree with that assumption.

The buck stops with the student though. While school helps, it's mostly down to the individual. The school isn't writing the answers for you. You can decide to go to school or not to. People find this shocking, it's merely a latent observation.

Like I said, the secondary school system is more akin to a sweat shop than a place of learning. Why do you think bored children get moved up or leave? The system is designed to mainly to produce dribblers content with simply clocking in and out 9-5 for the rest of their lives. Of course extremes at both ends of the curve exist.

Not saying school is totally useless, but I would question how stuffing people in rooms for 5-6 years listening to people with Arts Degrees yabbering on about CSPE on what you have isn't a bit short sighted. I repect the Primary level system 100%. Secondary is another kettle of fish entirely.

Joshua Jones

Truley wrote: »

I find it scary how so many people can't get their head around the concept of raising children outside of a school system. I think it's great that the idea Unschooling and Deschooling are becoming more popular and if I ever had children of my own I would seriously consider doing it.

Yeah me too. Anecdotally, I remember my mum teaching me long division at home. Maybe it was the one to one environment but i took it up quickly in like an hour or so. At school about a week later we started to learn it and it took days to get through. I think school should be to find out what children are intrested and talented in and make that subject their primary focus. I also feel that having children locked in rooms for 7-8 hours a day is just wrong. I would definately home school my child and have loads of outside activities too. I would enjoy it and hopefully we could have fun together.

So basically what I'm saying truly is, A/S/L:D.

Yahew

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Not a chance Biggins. School teaches more about conformity than critical and creative thinking. Don't listen to me - listen to Sir Ken Robinson (Knighted for his services to education).

Ken Robinson says schools kill creativity



Ah you're building a strawman there B. Where did I make the argument that that should be the course of action?

You are either creative or you aren't. To know stuff is to be taught stuff. When you know what humans have learned over 2,000 years of history, you can add to it. Some of this is necessarily rote learning, or you would have to discover calculus, evolution, or the reason for corrie lakes yourself.

The whole "teach creativity" thing is nonsense. It has been tried over the last 20 years with not much obvious increase in creativity, or learning. On the other hand Einstein, Shakespeare and others went to school.

El_Dangeroso

Yahew wrote: »

well we had the dark ages, when things were unstructured and people were fairly non-productive.

Your blaming the dark ages on lack of going to a building every day to learn things off by rote? Yeesh.

Yahew

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Wait...

Calculus and poetry teach children to solve real world problems!?

No it doesn't!

Jesus wept. The entire modern world depends on calculus.

Chuck Stone

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

Im too drunk for this thread,.

I Lol'd.

Yahew wrote: »

You are either creative or you aren't. To know stuff is to be taught stuff.

The whole "teach creativity" thing is nonsense. It has been tried over the last 20 years with not much obvious increase in creativity, or learning. On the other hand Einstein, Shakespeare and others went to school.

I agree, but you've missed the point somewhat, that creativity can be stifled within current systems.

Chuck Stone

Yahew wrote: »

Jesus wept. The entire modern world depends on calculus.

The context. You missed it.

ClocksForward

Fbjm wrote: »

Without mental institutions for the mentally unfit, people like you would be roaming the streets, creating nonsensical threads on sites like boards and generally being a nuisance.

People like you are part of the problem. You don't like my arugment, fine, but to question my state of mind reflects more
poorly on yourself than I. Arguments stand on their own merit without regard to the person speaking. Questioning state of
mind is secondary to the evaluation of the proposition/argument. You can evaluate an argument without reference to a person.
Do you understand this?

Maybe I should lobotomise myself:rolleyes:

Yahew

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Your blaming the dark ages on lack of going to a building every day to learn things off by rote? Yeesh.

The question was

1) what was society like before people went to school.
2) Answer was - the dark ages.

This is by the way, an empirical fact. People who argue that productivity increases because we get scientists who have gone to school, or that art increases because we have artists who have been schooled are founding that knowledge on fact.

You can be taught at home ( Newton was). But that is for the very rich. Everybody else needs schools. If Shakespeare didn't go to school, like most of his generation, we wouldn't have shakespearian drama.

Yahew

Chuck Stone wrote: »

The context. You missed it.

What "context" did I miss in this statement?


Calculus and poetry teach children to solve real world problems!?

Biggins

ClocksForward wrote: »

The buck stops with the student though. While school helps, it's mostly down to the individual.

The buck does stop with the student. The schooling (by whatever method) provides the material easier, the tools, to let a student take them and with a bit of direction based on learned/know experience, progress them according to their abilities and drive.

ClocksForward wrote: »

...Like I said, the secondary school system is more akin to a sweat shop than a place of learning.

Well thats an opinion. I assume one you have come to based on some personal experiences.
If so, I'm sorry to read you've experience this.

ClocksForward wrote: »

...Why do you think bored children get moved up or leave?

Non proper application of proper teaching? Not enough drive within the individual? Not enough time given to the student? There are a myriad of reasons, some cross-complicated.
It just don't boil down to four walls and a roof.

ClocksForward wrote: »

...The system is designed to mainly to produce dribblers content with simply clocking in and out 9-5 for the rest of their lives. Of course extremes at both ends of the curve exist.

Well the buck stops with the individual don't it?
They can submit to such a state of affairs or they can try doing their own thing can't they?
Remember the saying "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink it" ?

ClocksForward wrote: »

...Not saying school is totally useless, but I would question how stuffing people in rooms for 5-6 years listening to people with Arts Degrees yabbering on about CSPE on what you have is a bit short sighted. I repect the Primary level system 100%. Secondary is another kettle of fish entirely.

Well to be honest, by the time THEY have grown up to THEN decided they wish to be stuffed into a room for the reason of wishing an arts degree (or something similar) - that is their choice. One eventually arrived at by previous teaching, learned skill-set, analytical ability to decide what's best for them and a free choice to walk into that room or walk away.

...After all, the buck stops with them!

mackg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldorf_education

My two nephews in England are attending one of these schools with absolutely fantastic results, it's definitely a different approach and one which I was sceptical about in the beginnning, I'm guilty of referring to it as "the hippy school".

There are other options to traditional education but I would be wary of completely abandoning the idea of school because I do believe that social interaction is a huge part of it.

ClocksForward

Maybe it's probably best to consider this as a personaly thing. It works for some, not for others. There is no point in giving a blanket approach to this, that much I will agree with. A great good is a tremendous asset to society. Conversly, a bad school is a dumping ground for trouble makers and fools. At least that is what I was told:p

iguana

Chuck Stone wrote: »

What are these standards?

Pretty much the minimum, afaik the guidelines are reasonably fluid. The child ideally needs to have literacy and numeracy at least in the lower end of it's age group (unless there are documented learning difficulties that the parent is making a demonstrable effort to meet the needs of such a child). They need to have a basic understanding of how the world works, Irish culture, basic history and geography, etc. It's as much of a check that the child isn't being abused or neglected as anything else.

In Ireland parents have a constitutional right to choose how their children are educated. Homeschooling or choosing a non-curriculum school like Steiner or Montessori is a right for every parent, though non-curriculum schools receive no state funding so parents have to cover the running costs of the schools, usually €2-3k a year per child.

I have no desire to send my children to a state school (this includes private schools that follow the state educational methods and curriculum and receive state funding). Ideally they will do Montessori until 12. If they then choose to go to state school they can, otherwise they can be home schooled. The Open University in the UK has a method of testing home educated teenagers and then passing them into the mainstream university system if they are considered good enough for their chosen courses, if they want to go to 3rd level. School is not a mandatory requirement for a third level education.

ClocksForward

Abi wrote: »

There's more to it than that. School not only educates the child, but broadens it's social circle and social skills. Not sending a child to school just does not compute to me.

Sending a child to school for "the social" isn't going to get him/her a job. Why not leave primary school as compulsory and remove compulsory secondary schooling? Most of the BS you learn in the leaving could be crammed in a year tops, like they do in those cram schools.

Shool is for learning, right? It's not the local social outlet! Socialising and talking utter rubbish is the pursuit of simple folk. I prefer my own company, personally.

amacachi

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Because you spent hours and hours a day reading about a vast variety of subjects and are completely unwilling to give it any credit for your level of literacy.

School stopped me from reading what I wanted to and gradually wore away my love of reading.

Biggins wrote: »

(See that last line - a 7/8 year old would see the word "boat" and just read it as that. Later years of schooling would teach them to actually read it as its meant!)

Speak for yourself.

Chuck Stone

Haelium wrote: »

Has it occurred to anybody that we teach children Calculus and Poetry so that their minds develop so that they can use their brains to solve real world problems?

The brain is like a muscle, if you don't use it, it will waste away.

Above was the original point. Below was my reply.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Wait...

Calculus and poetry teach children to solve real world problems!?

No it doesn't!

Yahew wrote: »

What "context" did I miss in this statement?

Calculus and poetry teach children to solve real world problems!?

Saying calculus and poetry teaches children to solve real world problems takes some leap of faith.

Some children will be bored by calculus and poetry but will still have problem solving skills.

Now if we're talking about computers and building bridges then yeah calculus among other mathematical strains would be good tools used to solve problems but ultimately it is the person himself not the tools that solve problems.

Biggins

Chuck Stone wrote: »

...Now if we're talking about computers and building bridges then yeah calculus among other mathematical strains would be good tools used to solve problems but ultimately it is the person himself not the tools that solve problems.

True but also I would suggest that at least within such a proper environment, many 'tools' are put before the student.
The more the merrier. They then find/discover which one is best for them.

mackg

ClocksForward wrote: »

Sending a child to school for "the social" isn't going to get him/her a job. Why not leave primary school as compulsory and remove compulsory secondary schooling? Most of the BS you learn in the leaving could be crammed in a year tops, like they do in those cram schools.

Shool is for learning, right? It's not the local social outlet! Socialising and talking utter rubbish is the pursuit of simple folk. I prefer my own company, personally.

trolltown eh?

El_Dangeroso

Yahew wrote: »

The question was

1) what was society like before people went to school.
2) Answer was - the dark ages.

LOL! Yes, the beginning of time was the dark ages. Again, yeesh.

Yahew wrote: »

This is by the way, an empirical fact. People who argue that productivity increases because we get scientists who have gone to school, or that art increases because we have artists who have been schooled are founding that knowledge on fact.

You think the only way to learn anything is through a traditional school. You are wrong.

Yahew wrote: »

You can be taught at home ( Newton was). But that is for the very rich. Everybody else needs schools. If Shakespeare didn't go to school, like most of his generation, we wouldn't have shakespearian drama.

Someone tell the thousands of people that homeschool their children that they have to be rich. Sorry but that statement is downright ignorant.

Re: shakespeare, the mind actually boggles. Quit trotting out that the only two options are going to a school or complete lack of education.

If you said that there were no other options other than school because we need get young people used to submitting to authority and need somewhere to stash kids so both parents can contribute to GDP I'd say fair enough.

ClocksForward

MegaWattKungFu wrote: »

This could be an interesting discussion but after hours isn't the place for it.

True. But it's damn funny to read through the varying responses. AH isn't the cesspit of boards for nothing:pac:

Rabble Rabble Rabble!!!!

Siuin

Why do we put children through school?
Because babysitters are damn expensive! :P

aaronjumper

No kid likes to go to school and because hitting them
is a bit strong the only legal way of torturing them is. . .
school :pac: